niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth? A: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier  Q: Was he already an established hunter? A: he was an experienced hunter  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he just hunting for more trophies?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth? A: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier  Q: Was he already an established hunter? A: he was an experienced hunter  Q: Was he just hunting for more trophies? A: wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see. So he would only attack armed humans. Got it
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth? A: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I only know a little bit about Predator lore/fandom. Was he hunting for a rite of passage?
Output: No
CONTEXT: To build on @MadDoctor5813's answer, While the powers of the stones don't change based on how they are being used, we've seen that the stones can be infused into other objects (Loki's staff, Ronan's Hammer, Tesseract powered weapons, Visions body, Eye of Agamotto) to make them more wieldy for the users or make it easer to tap into their powers. Fact: Agamotto constructed the necklace to house the time stone, and while he was a powerful sorcerer (the first Sorcerer Supreme), he was still a mortal. Speculation: He was simply out of his depth. He was able to build a construct capable of housing and tapping in to the power of the time-stone, but was unaware or unable to tap into the full power of the stone effortlessly. The necklace required rigorous study of very specific spell-casting because that is how it was designed. Fact: Thanos had the gauntlet purpose-built to house all 6 stones and access their powers easily. Speculation: He is able to access their powers so easily because he is aware of what each stone is capable of (hence why he is looking for them) and had Eitri the dwarf design the gauntlet to fully access those capabilities.  <sep>  Q: How did Thanos know how to use this item?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To build on @MadDoctor5813's answer, While the powers of the stones don't change based on how they are being used, we've seen that the stones can be infused into other objects (Loki's staff, Ronan's Hammer, Tesseract powered weapons, Visions body, Eye of Agamotto) to make them more wieldy for the users or make it easer to tap into their powers. Fact: Agamotto constructed the necklace to house the time stone, and while he was a powerful sorcerer (the first Sorcerer Supreme), he was still a mortal. Speculation: He was simply out of his depth. He was able to build a construct capable of housing and tapping in to the power of the time-stone, but was unaware or unable to tap into the full power of the stone effortlessly. The necklace required rigorous study of very specific spell-casting because that is how it was designed. Fact: Thanos had the gauntlet purpose-built to house all 6 stones and access their powers easily. Speculation: He is able to access their powers so easily because he is aware of what each stone is capable of (hence why he is looking for them) and had Eitri the dwarf design the gauntlet to fully access those capabilities.  <sep>  Q: How did Thanos know how to use this item? A: While the powers of the stones don't change based on how they are being used, we've seen that the stones can be infused into other objects  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are they infused with?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To build on @MadDoctor5813's answer, While the powers of the stones don't change based on how they are being used, we've seen that the stones can be infused into other objects (Loki's staff, Ronan's Hammer, Tesseract powered weapons, Visions body, Eye of Agamotto) to make them more wieldy for the users or make it easer to tap into their powers. Fact: Agamotto constructed the necklace to house the time stone, and while he was a powerful sorcerer (the first Sorcerer Supreme), he was still a mortal. Speculation: He was simply out of his depth. He was able to build a construct capable of housing and tapping in to the power of the time-stone, but was unaware or unable to tap into the full power of the stone effortlessly. The necklace required rigorous study of very specific spell-casting because that is how it was designed. Fact: Thanos had the gauntlet purpose-built to house all 6 stones and access their powers easily. Speculation: He is able to access their powers so easily because he is aware of what each stone is capable of (hence why he is looking for them) and had Eitri the dwarf design the gauntlet to fully access those capabilities.  <sep>  Q: How did Thanos know how to use this item? A: While the powers of the stones don't change based on how they are being used, we've seen that the stones can be infused into other objects  Q: What are they infused with? A: Loki's staff, Ronan's Hammer, Tesseract powered weapons, Visions body, Eye of Agamotto  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there any other important things I should know?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider, which is why they were pulled from their respective universes. It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am) says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe.  <sep>  Q: How was Gwen pulled into Miles's universe?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider, which is why they were pulled from their respective universes. It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am) says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe.  <sep>  Q: How was Gwen pulled into Miles's universe? A: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: We learned that Peter Parker was killed long before, so why did a portal open up near Gwen?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider, which is why they were pulled from their respective universes. It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am) says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe.  <sep>  Q: How was Gwen pulled into Miles's universe? A: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider  Q: We learned that Peter Parker was killed long before, so why did a portal open up near Gwen? A: says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, I thought I might have missed something...so it's safe to assume there would be other normal people and not just spideys?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider, which is why they were pulled from their respective universes. It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am) says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe.  <sep>  Q: How was Gwen pulled into Miles's universe? A: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider  Q: We learned that Peter Parker was killed long before, so why did a portal open up near Gwen? A: says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe  Q: Okay, I thought I might have missed something...so it's safe to assume there would be other normal people and not just spideys? A: It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who is Doc Ock?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider, which is why they were pulled from their respective universes. It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am) says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe.  <sep>  Q: How was Gwen pulled into Miles's universe? A: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did that happen though?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider, which is why they were pulled from their respective universes. It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am) says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe.  <sep>  Q: How was Gwen pulled into Miles's universe? A: They share the DNA of the irradiated spider  Q: We learned that Peter Parker was killed long before, so why did a portal open up near Gwen? A: says that the fact these extra spider people are here proves her theory will work to retrieve Fisk's wife and son from another universe  Q: Okay, I thought I might have missed something...so it's safe to assume there would be other normal people and not just spideys? A: It's the one thing they all have in common and is why Doc Ock  Q: Who is Doc Ock? A: Doc Ock (Or Liv, if you are friendlier with her than I am  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh that's good to know...any of neat facts you might know about Spideys?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone. This came to a head when Gere, carrying a sandwich, got into a crowded car with Stallone despite Stallone's objections. Gere then proceeded to spill mustard out of the sandwich onto Stallone while eating and that was it for Stallone. He elbowed Gere out of the car and made an ultimatum to the director which resulted in Gere being fired.  <sep>  Q: What caused Sylvester Stallone to get into a fight with Richard Gere?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone. This came to a head when Gere, carrying a sandwich, got into a crowded car with Stallone despite Stallone's objections. Gere then proceeded to spill mustard out of the sandwich onto Stallone while eating and that was it for Stallone. He elbowed Gere out of the car and made an ultimatum to the director which resulted in Gere being fired.  <sep>  Q: What caused Sylvester Stallone to get into a fight with Richard Gere? A: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Gere fired intead of Stallone?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone. This came to a head when Gere, carrying a sandwich, got into a crowded car with Stallone despite Stallone's objections. Gere then proceeded to spill mustard out of the sandwich onto Stallone while eating and that was it for Stallone. He elbowed Gere out of the car and made an ultimatum to the director which resulted in Gere being fired.  <sep>  Q: What caused Sylvester Stallone to get into a fight with Richard Gere? A: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone  Q: Why was Gere fired intead of Stallone? A: He elbowed Gere out of the car and made an ultimatum to the director which resulted in Gere being fired  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What caused the fight?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone. This came to a head when Gere, carrying a sandwich, got into a crowded car with Stallone despite Stallone's objections. Gere then proceeded to spill mustard out of the sandwich onto Stallone while eating and that was it for Stallone. He elbowed Gere out of the car and made an ultimatum to the director which resulted in Gere being fired.  <sep>  Q: What caused Sylvester Stallone to get into a fight with Richard Gere? A: Apparently what happened is that Gere got too into character during the filming and repeatedly irritated Stallone  Q: Why was Gere fired intead of Stallone? A: He elbowed Gere out of the car and made an ultimatum to the director which resulted in Gere being fired  Q: What caused the fight? A: This came to a head when Gere, carrying a sandwich, got into a crowded car with Stallone despite Stallone's objections  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Stallone object?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever. He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do: control the yellow essence of fear without losing himself to it. He also believed that the green essence of will power was no match for the yellow, and that if he wanted to defeat Parallax he would have to use the same power, which is why he asked for a yellow ring to be constructed. Had Sinestro's plan prevailed, he would've worn the yellow ring into battle with Parallax. The latter wouldn't be able to siphon fear from Sinestro's ring because the yellow ring didn't emit fear, it absorbed it, the same way Parallax does.  <sep>  Q: Why does Sinestro have The Guardians create a ring of fear?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever. He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do: control the yellow essence of fear without losing himself to it. He also believed that the green essence of will power was no match for the yellow, and that if he wanted to defeat Parallax he would have to use the same power, which is why he asked for a yellow ring to be constructed. Had Sinestro's plan prevailed, he would've worn the yellow ring into battle with Parallax. The latter wouldn't be able to siphon fear from Sinestro's ring because the yellow ring didn't emit fear, it absorbed it, the same way Parallax does.  <sep>  Q: Why does Sinestro have The Guardians create a ring of fear? A: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: why did he create the ring of fear?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever. He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do: control the yellow essence of fear without losing himself to it. He also believed that the green essence of will power was no match for the yellow, and that if he wanted to defeat Parallax he would have to use the same power, which is why he asked for a yellow ring to be constructed. Had Sinestro's plan prevailed, he would've worn the yellow ring into battle with Parallax. The latter wouldn't be able to siphon fear from Sinestro's ring because the yellow ring didn't emit fear, it absorbed it, the same way Parallax does.  <sep>  Q: Why does Sinestro have The Guardians create a ring of fear? A: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever  Q: why did he create the ring of fear? A: He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Parallax fail to do?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever. He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do: control the yellow essence of fear without losing himself to it. He also believed that the green essence of will power was no match for the yellow, and that if he wanted to defeat Parallax he would have to use the same power, which is why he asked for a yellow ring to be constructed. Had Sinestro's plan prevailed, he would've worn the yellow ring into battle with Parallax. The latter wouldn't be able to siphon fear from Sinestro's ring because the yellow ring didn't emit fear, it absorbed it, the same way Parallax does.  <sep>  Q: Why does Sinestro have The Guardians create a ring of fear? A: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever  Q: why did he create the ring of fear? A: He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do  Q: What did Parallax fail to do? A: control the yellow essence of fear without losing himself to it. He  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the yellow essence?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy!  <sep>  Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy!  <sep>  Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper? A: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did SAm do things for the devil?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy!  <sep>  Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper? A: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation  Q: Why did SAm do things for the devil? A: his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Sam know that his parents sold his soul?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy!  <sep>  Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper? A: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation  Q: Why did SAm do things for the devil? A: his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts  Q: Does Sam know that his parents sold his soul? A: near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: DId Sam win his soul back?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy!  <sep>  Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper? A: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation  Q: Why did SAm do things for the devil? A: his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: WHen did they sell his soul to the devil?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I agree with @Paulster2 - just to make you laugh while scratching your head. But I want to add that Billy comes back to the classroom while the teacher is performing a tortured dance of anguish, so I think the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis. Adam Sandler thinks it's funny to show that a sweet Kindergarten teacher has this troubled psychological condition underneath it all. (And I remember laughing at the paste on the face, so I must think it's funny too!)  <sep>  Q: Why does the teacher put paste on her face?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I agree with @Paulster2 - just to make you laugh while scratching your head. But I want to add that Billy comes back to the classroom while the teacher is performing a tortured dance of anguish, so I think the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis. Adam Sandler thinks it's funny to show that a sweet Kindergarten teacher has this troubled psychological condition underneath it all. (And I remember laughing at the paste on the face, so I must think it's funny too!)  <sep>  Q: Why does the teacher put paste on her face? A: the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: There is a strange scene and the scene ends right after she does this.
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I agree with @Paulster2 - just to make you laugh while scratching your head. But I want to add that Billy comes back to the classroom while the teacher is performing a tortured dance of anguish, so I think the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis. Adam Sandler thinks it's funny to show that a sweet Kindergarten teacher has this troubled psychological condition underneath it all. (And I remember laughing at the paste on the face, so I must think it's funny too!)  <sep>  Q: Why does the teacher put paste on her face? A: the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis  Q: There is a strange scene and the scene ends right after she does this. A: just to make you laugh while scratching your head  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So there is no other relevance of the scene?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Simple: Agent Carter The spin off series takes place without Steve Rogers and happens in 1946/1947 after Rogers crashing the Wing into the ice in 1945 (and in series 2 Carter has moved to LA). So by the time they are reunited Steve has been away for at least 2 years and his yard is a bit overgrown.  <sep>  Q: Why was Steve Rogers' yard so overgrown?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Simple: Agent Carter The spin off series takes place without Steve Rogers and happens in 1946/1947 after Rogers crashing the Wing into the ice in 1945 (and in series 2 Carter has moved to LA). So by the time they are reunited Steve has been away for at least 2 years and his yard is a bit overgrown.  <sep>  Q: Why was Steve Rogers' yard so overgrown? A: Steve has been away for at least 2 years and his yard is a bit overgrown  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where was Peggy while steve was away?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There was no time or intention to turn her into White Walker. Let us look at the scene from S04E04. A white walker brings a baby holding in his lap and puts it on an ice table (or whatever it is) for the arrival of the Night King. All were waiting for the ceremony to happen because it is planned. The Night King arrives at the place and changes it with his touch. If we look at the scene from S0803 closely, it was dark. Night King was going towards Bran. Arya came running and suddenly jumps towards Night King. He senses the movement and sound and grabs Arya by her neck by reflex. So, the intention was to stop and kill her. When Arya drops the dagger, Night King looks surprised. This shows he doesn't know what would happen next. There was no time to think and turn her into a white walker by touch. There was no planning in this scene like S04E04. First intent is to stop and kill Arya. We do not know what would he do if he killed her. Even if he had so much time, it's unclear whether Night King can turn adults directly into white walkers. It's neither hinted in the show or books. When he holds Arya, we hear a cracking sound of ice. Arya was quick enough to react, drop the dagger and do the rest.  <sep>  Q: How did Arya survive this confrontation unscathed?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There was no time or intention to turn her into White Walker. Let us look at the scene from S04E04. A white walker brings a baby holding in his lap and puts it on an ice table (or whatever it is) for the arrival of the Night King. All were waiting for the ceremony to happen because it is planned. The Night King arrives at the place and changes it with his touch. If we look at the scene from S0803 closely, it was dark. Night King was going towards Bran. Arya came running and suddenly jumps towards Night King. He senses the movement and sound and grabs Arya by her neck by reflex. So, the intention was to stop and kill her. When Arya drops the dagger, Night King looks surprised. This shows he doesn't know what would happen next. There was no time to think and turn her into a white walker by touch. There was no planning in this scene like S04E04. First intent is to stop and kill Arya. We do not know what would he do if he killed her. Even if he had so much time, it's unclear whether Night King can turn adults directly into white walkers. It's neither hinted in the show or books. When he holds Arya, we hear a cracking sound of ice. Arya was quick enough to react, drop the dagger and do the rest.  <sep>  Q: How did Arya survive this confrontation unscathed? A: Arya was quick enough to react, drop the dagger and do the rest  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How old is the child that they lay on the altar of ice?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There was no time or intention to turn her into White Walker. Let us look at the scene from S04E04. A white walker brings a baby holding in his lap and puts it on an ice table (or whatever it is) for the arrival of the Night King. All were waiting for the ceremony to happen because it is planned. The Night King arrives at the place and changes it with his touch. If we look at the scene from S0803 closely, it was dark. Night King was going towards Bran. Arya came running and suddenly jumps towards Night King. He senses the movement and sound and grabs Arya by her neck by reflex. So, the intention was to stop and kill her. When Arya drops the dagger, Night King looks surprised. This shows he doesn't know what would happen next. There was no time to think and turn her into a white walker by touch. There was no planning in this scene like S04E04. First intent is to stop and kill Arya. We do not know what would he do if he killed her. Even if he had so much time, it's unclear whether Night King can turn adults directly into white walkers. It's neither hinted in the show or books. When he holds Arya, we hear a cracking sound of ice. Arya was quick enough to react, drop the dagger and do the rest.  <sep>  Q: How did Arya survive this confrontation unscathed? A: Arya was quick enough to react, drop the dagger and do the rest  Q: How old is the child that they lay on the altar of ice? A: a baby  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens when someone is transformed into a White Walker?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember, well, everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news, it seems that he doesn't just "know" everything in the past). Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say, just as a subtle way of saying "just so you know, I know". As he throws Bran from the window, Jaime quips to Cersei, "The things I do for love". When Bran paraphrases this line back to Jaime while staring him in the eye in S8e2, it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened. He does something similar with Littlefinger, quoting "chaos is a ladder" at him, despite it being impossible for him to have heard the original conversation.  <sep>  Q: When does Bran Stark remember Jaime pushing him?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember, well, everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news, it seems that he doesn't just "know" everything in the past). Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say, just as a subtle way of saying "just so you know, I know". As he throws Bran from the window, Jaime quips to Cersei, "The things I do for love". When Bran paraphrases this line back to Jaime while staring him in the eye in S8e2, it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened. He does something similar with Littlefinger, quoting "chaos is a ladder" at him, despite it being impossible for him to have heard the original conversation.  <sep>  Q: When does Bran Stark remember Jaime pushing him? A: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does he remember exactly?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember, well, everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news, it seems that he doesn't just "know" everything in the past). Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say, just as a subtle way of saying "just so you know, I know". As he throws Bran from the window, Jaime quips to Cersei, "The things I do for love". When Bran paraphrases this line back to Jaime while staring him in the eye in S8e2, it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened. He does something similar with Littlefinger, quoting "chaos is a ladder" at him, despite it being impossible for him to have heard the original conversation.  <sep>  Q: When does Bran Stark remember Jaime pushing him? A: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember  Q: What does he remember exactly? A: everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news  Q: How can he remember everything that has ever happened? A: Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So how does Jamie discover that Brian remembers all things?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember, well, everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news, it seems that he doesn't just "know" everything in the past). Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say, just as a subtle way of saying "just so you know, I know". As he throws Bran from the window, Jaime quips to Cersei, "The things I do for love". When Bran paraphrases this line back to Jaime while staring him in the eye in S8e2, it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened. He does something similar with Littlefinger, quoting "chaos is a ladder" at him, despite it being impossible for him to have heard the original conversation.  <sep>  Q: When does Bran Stark remember Jaime pushing him? A: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember  Q: What does he remember exactly? A: everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news  Q: How can he remember everything that has ever happened? A: Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say  Q: So how does Jamie discover that Brian remembers all things? A: it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything else about Bran?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember, well, everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news, it seems that he doesn't just "know" everything in the past). Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say, just as a subtle way of saying "just so you know, I know". As he throws Bran from the window, Jaime quips to Cersei, "The things I do for love". When Bran paraphrases this line back to Jaime while staring him in the eye in S8e2, it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened. He does something similar with Littlefinger, quoting "chaos is a ladder" at him, despite it being impossible for him to have heard the original conversation.  <sep>  Q: When does Bran Stark remember Jaime pushing him? A: Since becoming the Three Eyed Raven, Bran has the ability to remember  Q: What does he remember exactly? A: everything that's ever happened in Westeros, including how he fell from the tower (although given that Sam was able to tell him some, ahem, surprising news  Q: How can he remember everything that has ever happened? A: Bran also has a habit of repeating things he never could have heard people say  Q: So how does Jamie discover that Brian remembers all things? A: it becomes clear to Jaime that Bran knows what happened  Q: Can you tell me anything else about Bran? A: He does something similar with Littlefinger, quoting "chaos is a ladder" at him, despite it being impossible for him to have heard the original conversation  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok that's interesting, how is he able to do this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is Scott called "the father" of the director's cut?
Output: No
CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was his first director's cut?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Science fiction appeals because of the mind-expanding quality, bizarre and unexpected scenarios in plausible ways. This often includes disorientation re: space and time, for example, in Planet of the Apes the planet turns out to be Earth, after the title implies some other world. Babylon A.D. also has a stop-short quality: if it doesn't quite make sense, that's the point. "Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect, this is neither the historical Babylon nor a generic reference. (If "C.E." is gradually being adopted, that adds to the effect.) Playfully bewildering titles aren't uncommon in fantastic films. One I've found intriguing is the U.S. title for Quatermass and the Pit (1967): Five Million Years to Earth. A few years later came Dracula A.D. 1972, and The X-Files did "Hollywood A.D." Thus, "Babylon A.D." seems less a plot reference (I haven't seen it) than an appeal to the tastes and cultural memory of s.f. viewers.  <sep>  Q: Why is the movie titled "Babylon A.D."?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Science fiction appeals because of the mind-expanding quality, bizarre and unexpected scenarios in plausible ways. This often includes disorientation re: space and time, for example, in Planet of the Apes the planet turns out to be Earth, after the title implies some other world. Babylon A.D. also has a stop-short quality: if it doesn't quite make sense, that's the point. "Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect, this is neither the historical Babylon nor a generic reference. (If "C.E." is gradually being adopted, that adds to the effect.) Playfully bewildering titles aren't uncommon in fantastic films. One I've found intriguing is the U.S. title for Quatermass and the Pit (1967): Five Million Years to Earth. A few years later came Dracula A.D. 1972, and The X-Files did "Hollywood A.D." Thus, "Babylon A.D." seems less a plot reference (I haven't seen it) than an appeal to the tastes and cultural memory of s.f. viewers.  <sep>  Q: Why is the movie titled "Babylon A.D."? A: Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is a new generation born?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Science fiction appeals because of the mind-expanding quality, bizarre and unexpected scenarios in plausible ways. This often includes disorientation re: space and time, for example, in Planet of the Apes the planet turns out to be Earth, after the title implies some other world. Babylon A.D. also has a stop-short quality: if it doesn't quite make sense, that's the point. "Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect, this is neither the historical Babylon nor a generic reference. (If "C.E." is gradually being adopted, that adds to the effect.) Playfully bewildering titles aren't uncommon in fantastic films. One I've found intriguing is the U.S. title for Quatermass and the Pit (1967): Five Million Years to Earth. A few years later came Dracula A.D. 1972, and The X-Files did "Hollywood A.D." Thus, "Babylon A.D." seems less a plot reference (I haven't seen it) than an appeal to the tastes and cultural memory of s.f. viewers.  <sep>  Q: Why is the movie titled "Babylon A.D."? A: Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What kind of conflict is in the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Science fiction appeals because of the mind-expanding quality, bizarre and unexpected scenarios in plausible ways. This often includes disorientation re: space and time, for example, in Planet of the Apes the planet turns out to be Earth, after the title implies some other world. Babylon A.D. also has a stop-short quality: if it doesn't quite make sense, that's the point. "Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect, this is neither the historical Babylon nor a generic reference. (If "C.E." is gradually being adopted, that adds to the effect.) Playfully bewildering titles aren't uncommon in fantastic films. One I've found intriguing is the U.S. title for Quatermass and the Pit (1967): Five Million Years to Earth. A few years later came Dracula A.D. 1972, and The X-Files did "Hollywood A.D." Thus, "Babylon A.D." seems less a plot reference (I haven't seen it) than an appeal to the tastes and cultural memory of s.f. viewers.  <sep>  Q: Why is the movie titled "Babylon A.D."? A: Babylon" usually refers to the distant past or, as you say, the generic sense. "A.D." is both final and futuristic, not what we expect  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who are the stars in the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think that what the trailer was getting at was Noora's fear of just being another one of William's conquests. I think the naked girls were all meant to represent his past hook ups (I also think the blonde girl in the bed next to her is vilde and the fact those two are in the bed together represents noora and vilde's relationship and how it develops during season 2 because of William). All the sex toys, booze and cigarettes might be a shoutout to his bad boy image and the rumours that surround William that we heard in season 1. I think really it's just about Noora opening herself up to something she feels might destroy the walls that she put up around herself but thats how I feel now watching it back  <sep>  Q: Does the morning after scene from the trailer of season 2 of Skam fit into the actual story of the season?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think that what the trailer was getting at was Noora's fear of just being another one of William's conquests. I think the naked girls were all meant to represent his past hook ups (I also think the blonde girl in the bed next to her is vilde and the fact those two are in the bed together represents noora and vilde's relationship and how it develops during season 2 because of William). All the sex toys, booze and cigarettes might be a shoutout to his bad boy image and the rumours that surround William that we heard in season 1. I think really it's just about Noora opening herself up to something she feels might destroy the walls that she put up around herself but thats how I feel now watching it back  <sep>  Q: Does the morning after scene from the trailer of season 2 of Skam fit into the actual story of the season? A: I think that what the trailer was getting at was Noora's fear of just being another one of William's conquests  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else of importance I should know?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think that what the trailer was getting at was Noora's fear of just being another one of William's conquests. I think the naked girls were all meant to represent his past hook ups (I also think the blonde girl in the bed next to her is vilde and the fact those two are in the bed together represents noora and vilde's relationship and how it develops during season 2 because of William). All the sex toys, booze and cigarettes might be a shoutout to his bad boy image and the rumours that surround William that we heard in season 1. I think really it's just about Noora opening herself up to something she feels might destroy the walls that she put up around herself but thats how I feel now watching it back  <sep>  Q: Does the morning after scene from the trailer of season 2 of Skam fit into the actual story of the season? A: I think that what the trailer was getting at was Noora's fear of just being another one of William's conquests  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think the trailer is in chronological order?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Winter in the world of A Song of Ice and Fire works very differently than a real-world winter. The "seasons" are broken up into a binary system, Summer and Winter. It is implied that in the times of Winter snow creeps up as high as castle walls and the cold is unbearable. These Winters can last decades sort of like an Ice Age. These words are the motto of House Stark, presumably because of their close proximity to the Wall and the Lands of Always Winter. Currently, the shows events are taking place during a ~10yr Summer that started shortly before Brandon was born.  <sep>  Q: Is it in another galaxy?
Output: Yes